Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't EPA be the implementing agency responsible for writing the detailed regulations to implement whatever carbon legislation Congress would pass?

4:58 pm September 16, 2008

Engineer wrote :

Hey why not? This afterall the best Congress money can buy. We all know how pliable our elected lea... uh representatives are, especially if a slick lobbyist offers them some pork.
.
Why let the facts (or science) get into the way of a good (profitable) story?

5:30 pm September 16, 2008

crf wrote :

There is not one single entity that would encompass all regulations dealing with climate change.

However, wouldn't the EPA be well suited to make rules to deal with a large fraction of C02 and GHG emissions? For instance:
-Those coming from power stations.
-Emissions from the products of certain industries, like large steel mills, large cement makers. -The emissions of landfills.

But, I do agree with the critics that without oversight and coordination within government, the EPA would be flailing in the dark. Also, the regulations would have to be tied to whatever position is agreed to by the US in the multinational climate change talks in Copenhagen.

Comments about the EPA regulating "lawn-mowers" and "everything" just show that the people making the comments do not have serious position on the threat from climate change. First, the idea that lawnmowers, and small engines, ought to be regulated for emissions is not on the face of things ridiculous. Second, equating the regulation task between lawnmowers and, say, powerstations is silly. The only reason groups like the chamber of commerce make these equivalences are because they have within their membership a large contingent of people who do not believe climate change is real: it's just a false idol to their true god of the deregulation of everything, especially large, profitable sources of emissions, like power stations and cement plants.

Hasn't anyone noticed that the earth's temperature has been cooling for seven years? We are seven years into a normal eleven year solar cycle of reduced sun spots. Also, everyone is confusing short term weather with climate changes. The earth has never been his way before and it is never going to be this way again. You cannot be foolish enough to take a snapshot of the scenery you like and record the temperature you like and expect to keep them constant due to mankind's activities. Mankind's collective ego is getting in the way of making rational decisions regarding our collective survival. Our activities had nothing to do with coming out of the last big ice age or the little ice age around 1300. It is a shame when we get sold a bill-of-goods for someone's political agenda. You will not believe what aspects of our lives are going to be regulated in the name of controlling the thermostat.

If you want to worry about something, take a look at the impact a super-max solar flare is going to have on the earth. We could have lost our last Apollo moon mission due to smaller solar flares. The next cycle starts in 2012. We are just rolling the dice until one is focused on the earth.

In the big picture, there are many other forces in nature that will make the earth unfit for us to survive. Mankind's activities do not even register on the scale of these activities. The Earth does not even know we are here. We need to be developing technologies that will eventually enable us to leave the earth and survive on other planets.

6:26 pm September 16, 2008

David Ahlport wrote :

Well,
It actually does make sense to regulate CH4, NH3, CFC, HCFC, etc emissions.
-
Where as CO2 emissions, it'd make more sense to essentially place a "Fuel Tax".
-
i.e. Create a point-of-wholesale surcharge on Coal, Oil, and Natural gas based on their carbon content.
-
And then be done with it.
___
-
No reason for this to be a logistical nightmare, fraught with corruption, and needed oversight.

7:19 pm September 16, 2008

Tom Clarke wrote :

Well, the facts you set forth are not quite correct. EPA was prepared to do as the U.S. Supreme Court ordered, which was develop and implement a plan related to the Clean Air Act. No one pretends that this would be sufficient in and of itself to address global warming. You have raised a false dichotomy. It was shotdown by the White House because they preferred to do nothing; so it will be handed off to Congress and the next Administration. Be careful what you wish for. In any case, responding to the order of the U.S. Supreme Court and addressing GHG's overall are two separate and distinct issues.

8:12 pm September 16, 2008

Tide Runner wrote :

If you are going to worry about GHGs, you need to worry about the right one, and it is not CO2. Give up -- it is water vapor. WV makes up 95% of the GHGs that keep in the earth's heat. Now, we have card bragging that all they produce is WV. As far as CO2 goes, my college meteorology books stated that CO2 was .03% of the air up to 20 miles. My recent research on the internet shows CO2 to be .03% of the air we breath. CO2 may in increase, but if the N, Ar and other gases increase, the proportion stays the same.

One good volcano can produce more CO2 than all the cars in the world, like the one that went off in South America recently.

In case everyone has forgotten, plants need CO2 to produce O2, which is how the living planet started, or we would not be here discussing this.

Taxing our carbon footprint is the most dangerous idea we have come up with. Two more generations and we will be taxing large people more than small people because they exhale more CO2. If you think I am kidding, just wait.

Some have forgotten and some never knew the motto of the Royal Society in London and its relation to valid science, which we have much too little of. The motto, Nullius in Verba, By the words of noone, has been completely forgotten. Valid science stands on its own, it is not valid because of the oratory skills of the presenter. Newton was not right because of who he was, the laws were right and could be validated by anyone. All we hear today is that scientists believe, or a scientist has an opinion, or the model indicates that something could by true. It is all bull. I would rather have one Newton instead of all the pseudo scientists we have today. Eighty-three percent of all the scientists that have ever lived are alive today. One would expect higher quality work from all of these scientists.

Clean air and clean water are common sense to human survival. The problem is extending conservation issues into accepting global warming caused by man is a farce. These two are not connected and should not be legislated by the Supreme Court or anyone else in government to gain leverage over other aspects of our lives.

7:56 am September 17, 2008

Scott Stapf wrote :

The Chamber has far fewer corporate friends on climate change than your blog would leave a reader to conclude. Let's be clear about what is a big difference between the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (CAP) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (CoC): The major corporations that belong to CAP are no longer parsing global warming science, whereas the CoC is in full-blown denial of the sort that would make Exxon Mobil blush. Much as with the $7 trillion Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), CAP members certainly do want a place at the table in Washington when climate regulation is hammered out. But that is very different from the CoC strategy, which is to deny the facts about global warming science and derail the legislative/regulatory process. CAP members want Washington to act, but the Chamber of Commerce wants gridlock. These two approaches put CAP and the Chamber at odds ... not on the same page.

8:10 am September 17, 2008

Black on Green wrote :

Wholeheartedly agree with David Ahlport on this one. CO2 can be controlled on the demand side, and the other gases (per-pound) impact global warming more severely. Use existing tax-collection infrastructure and eliminate the feeding frenzy (carbon traders, SF trying to create a carbon financial center, etc.) at the trough that will only add cost to our society.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comment

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.